© 2010, Global Media Journal -- Canadian Edition Volume 3, Issue 1, pp. 75-86 ISSN: 1918-5901 (English) -- ISSN: 1918-591X (Français) Network Neutrality: A Thematic Analysis of Policy Perspectives Across the Globe A Policy Review by Christine M. Stover Oakland University, United States This policy review looks at four types of Internet traffic management policies across the globe: legal regulation, transparency, non-neutrality, and government control. Each of these has been employed to varying degrees by states to addressing the growing concern about “network neutrality”. Policymakers have used the term “network neutrality” to refer to a variety of perspectives about whether or not openness is a “fundamental” aspect of the Internet. This issue has been hotly debated across the globe as policymakers have sought to create appropriate Internet policies within their countries. In essence, policy makers must decide whether to keep the Internet “open” through regulation that would restrict Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from deciding the speed of service based upon content or financial interest. This review will provide a general summary of network neutrality and the concerns raised from different perspectives on the issue. Moreover, this review will present a thematic analysis of current policy positions from countries in North America, Europe, Australia and Asia to demonstrate the variety of approaches governments may take in developing network neutrality policies. From this analysis, four thematic positions are clear: legal regulation, transparency, non-neutrality, and government control. Background: What is Network Neutrality, and Why does it Matter? Network neutrality is a concept that suggests ISPs or other user access networks should not advocate restrictions or regulations on content, specific Internet sites, or Internet platforms. The reason why network neutrality is an issue is due to the design of the Internet. The Internet boasts three interesting design qualities that separate this medium from other telecommunications media. First, the Internet comprises a number of layers. In other words, functional tasks are divided up and assigned to different layers. This system creates a network of modular “building blocks” in which applications or protocols at higher layers can be developed or modified without Christine M. Stover 76 impact on lower layers, while lower layers can adopt new transmission or switch technologies without requiring changes to the upper layers (Cerf, 2009). This layered system has made possible the unhampered delivery of information packets from one point to another. Secondly, the Internet operates in an end-to-end design where applications are implemented on the Internet. According to Cerf, the Internet was designed to allow applications to reside at the edges of the network, rather than in the core of the network itself, which is opposite of telephone or cable networks, where applications and content are implemented in the central offices, away from the users at the edge (Cerf, 2009). Because of the Internet’s unique design, the power and functionality of the medium resides along the edges and in the hands of the end user. In sum, users not only select content as they would select a channel off of their cable, but they are potential creators of the content that is available for use. Third, the design of Internet Protocol (IP) separates the underlying networks from the services that reside on layers above them. From its inception, IP was designed to be an open standard (Cerf, 2009). In other words, any user of the Internet could also create applications and new networks. IPs therefore are indifferent to the underlying physical networks that carry information packets. The Internet is fundamentally different than telephone lines or mail because of the transmission of these Internet information packets. When a person places a telephone call, there is a single line dedicated between the caller and the receiver. However, when a website loads, there are no dedicated lines between the receiving computer and the website. Instead websites send data in many separate “packets”, each containing pieces of information that are used to assemble the web-page at the receiving computer with each packet possibly having taken a separate route, but always selecting the fastest of the available routes (Bhardwaj, 2006). Supporters of network neutrality suggest that the Internet does not need to know what are in those packets in order to carry them to their destinations because the Internet carries and routes data equally, without favoring certain applications or content providers over others (Cerf, 2009). The Argument in Support of Network Neutrality At the heart the argument in favor of network neutrality regulation is the notion that there should be no central gatekeepers exerting control over the Internet. Supporters of network neutrality believe that applications and content should fail or succeed based upon the interest of the users, rather than having any intermediaries. Those in support of network neutrality argue that the Internet is a platform for innovation, and allowing ISPs to have control over what information arrives to whom, and when, based upon content, is likely to squelch the innovative nature of the Internet. The individual who coined the term “network neutrality”, scholar Tim Wu, claimed that ensuring network neutrality would enable regulators to prevent ISPs from discriminating between websites, or other online services. Wu (2006) stated: If people like instapundit.com better than cnn.com, that is where people will go. If they like the search engine A9 better than Google, they vote with their clicks. It is a problem then, if the gate keepers of the Internet discriminate between favored and disfavored uses of the Internet? What if AT&T makes it slower and harder to reach Gmail and quicker and easier to reach Yahoo! mail? 77 Policy Review Network Neutrality: A Thematic Analysis of Policy Perspectives Across the Globe Wu (2006) further argued that without network neutrality, competition and innovation would suffer. Using an interesting metaphor Wu (2006) illustrated the problem: What if certain car manufacturers struck a deal with highway regulators? If highways could choose which brand of automobile got to drive in the fast lane, the consumer might buy a Pontiac instead of a Toyota, not because the Pontiac is a good car . as a result, the nature of competition among car makers would change. Rather than try to make the best product, they would battle to make deals with the highways. Wu suggested that allowing ISPs to decide which type of Internet traffic is awarded a faster speed is a type of Internet discrimination. Furthermore, by allowing for such practices to take place within Internet companies the current open platform of the Internet, that allows for great innovation, will be crushed under a marketplace where companies bid (regardless of under interest or content quality) and pay the ISPs for priority service without trying to improve their products. The concept of discrimination appears frequently in the net neutrality debate. Bhardwaj (2007) argued that the Internet is the most important, most democratic, and most open forum for free speech that exists among the variety of media. Therefore, Bhardwaj (2007) claimed that allowing ISPs to charge fees for content providers is a type of Internet prejudice. However, even under the umbrella of network neutrality regulation, an ISP could provide various tiers of service depending upon the needs of the subscriber. What concerned Bhardwaj is the type of fee based net prejudice where an ISP could charge websites an extra fee to enable them to be reached faster than other websites. This preferential treatment of Internet data, according to Bhardwaj, is sometimes referred to as “Quality of Service” (QoS). QoS would allow for preferential treatment of information packets based upon a classification system for the packet content. For instance, audio and video packets need to be played in a certain order to make logical sense, which would be classified and routed separately. In another scenario, packets that contain emergency status information could be classified as such and given priority. However, network neutrality proponents argue that simply increasing bandwidth across the network would be less expensive and easier to implement than QoS systems (Bhardwaj, 2007). Net neutrality proponents argue that ISPs operating under QoS standards are not actually improving the Internet or providing a “service”. Rather, they allow some websites to arrive faster by stepping in line in front of the websites that do not pay for the faster transfer. In a worst case scenario ISPs might even block entire websites to ensure that only the websites paying for the faster services will be available to the customer using that ISP. Cerf (2009) raised two important points in support of net neutrality. First, the Internet market is special in terms of other telecommunication industries. Since telecommunication markets tend towards high levels of market concentration with limited patterns of competition, there is a potential for network operators to distort competition and innovation in vertical markets (see also Blevins, 2002; and Blevins 2004). Second, for true competition to exist consumers must be empowered to select content, and this can only occur over open networks. To address these items, Cerf has advocated network neutrality rules that are narrowly tailored toward non-discrimination,